Notting Hill Genesis (202308701)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308701

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 May 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Leaks in the property.
2. Damp and mould.
3. The resident’s request to replace the upstairs bathroom.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She moved into the property via a mutual exchange on 18 September 2017. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
The resident had reoccurring leaks in her home throughout 2022. It is evident that the landlord carried out repair works during this time.
During April 2023, the resident reported a leak in her downstairs toilet. The landlord arranged for an operative to attend in May 2023 and it found 2 separate leaks in the downstairs toilet. A repair was completed at the time to stop the leak.
The landlord also arranged for its contractors to attend the property to assess the cause of the damp and mould it had identified, and any repairs needed. The proposed works were:
1. Cloakroom (downstairs toilet) – To strip the walls, inspect for any ongoing leaks, renew pipework, renew skirting, skim walls, and decorate.
2. Dining room – To complete a patch repair to water damaged wall. To stain block and decorate to match.
3. External – To clear gutter. Report back on any loose renders and to repoint next to fining room window.
Throughout June and July 2023, the landlord carried out inspections and the works listed above were completed. It also carried out a damp and mould wash.
Following the resident’s concerns about the paint blistering and further damp and mould, the landlord conducted an inspection on 31 July 2023. Further works to resolve peeling paint, hygroscopic salts, and a further mould wash were completed in August 2023.
During this time, the resident also requested for a bathroom renewal. The landlord inspected the bathroom but decided it did not meet the requirements. It explained this to the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 September 2023. It stated:
1. All problems raised had been fully addressed. Its surveyor and operational manager had carried out 3 visits to assess and address any outstanding issues.
2. Planned renewal of the bathroom and toilet – It explained its surveyors had visited in 2020 to undertake a survey of the toilet in preparation for consideration for renewal. However, a renewal had never been agreed. It conducted a further inspection during 2023, no faults were found, and it stated the bathroom was completely functional.
3. Downstairs toilet leaking and faulty plumbing in the bathroom – It reviewed its repair logs and confirmed that when the resident raised reports of repairs it was logged immediately and assigned to its contractors. The landlord agreed to have the downstairs toilet cloakroom renovated and this was completed during July 2023.
4. Persistent damp and mould in the bathroom – When its surveyors visited, it noted the property was not being ventilated adequately and the extractor fan was switched off. A mould treatment was raised and its contractors attended on 26 June 2023; however, the resident had refused access. At the time, the resident had requested additional work which went beyond the scope of works agreed. It stated all damp and mould issues have since been resolved and it had no active reports outstanding.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s findings and escalated the complaint. She was unhappy that the landlord had not completed a bathroom replacement. She also stated that the wrong paint was used and was unhappy with the landlord’s comments about the extractor fan.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 November 2023, which included the following:
1. Bathroom replacement not completed – It explained that, with any mutual exchange, the property is accepted ‘as is’ by the incoming resident. She had signed the agreement on 14 September 2017 and at that time the bathroom had been inspected and was in a good condition.
2. In November 2019, it had recommended an inspection of her bathroom to establish if a renewal was required; however, this was delayed due to COVID-19. When the inspector later visited, they stated the bathroom was dated but was functional. The landlord carried out a further inspection and it was agreed that both the bathroom and toilet upstairs were functional, although minor repairs could be done to improve it. In response to the resident’s request for the bathroom and toilet be put into one space to accommodate her daughter’s disability, it explained that she would need to have an occupational therapist’s report recommendation. This was advised to her during the meeting on 30 June 2023.
3. Incorrect information on extractor fan – The landlord apologised that she felt the incorrect information was provided in the previous response. It had checked with its operative who advised that the fan was off at the time. It explained the fan should be switched on when needed to reduce humidity in the bathroom to prevent mould.
4. Incorrect paint used – It was awaiting an answer from its contractors about what paint was used. It also stated it would arrange for them to revisit the property.
5. It concluded that it had not identified any service failures. However, it apologised for the delays in providing a response and offered £50.
The resident brought her complaint to this service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issues with the downstairs toilet, faulty plumbing in the bathroom, and persistent damp and mould. She was also seeking for the downstairs toilet to be replaced and for any necessary repairs to be carried out.
We recently spoke with the resident to confirm the current situation of her property. She explained she was still experiencing damp and mould in the upstairs bathroom. She also explained the paint which was applied to prevent mould was peeling and wet. The resident’s main concern was that she was seeking to have adaptations made to her upstairs bathroom to accommodate her daughter’s needs; however, this has not been agreed.

Assessment and findings

We understand the resident has expressed distress over the issues raised in this complaint, stating it has affected her health and wellbeing. While we have noted this as context, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because claims of personal injury a more appropriate for either an insurance claim or the courts, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. The resident has the option to seek further legal advice on this matter.
Consideration has, been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
Additionally, the repair records show there has been a reoccurring leak with the downstairs cloakroom toilet. This was raised 3 times in 2022 and each time, the landlord attended to fix the leak. While we understand that the resident was unhappy with the reoccurring issue, this report is focused on the events surrounding the resident’s formal complaint in August 2023, and the 12 months leading up to her complaint.

The landlord’s handling of leaks in the property.

In the resident’s complaint, she stated that the bathroom plumbing was faulty which resulted in frequent leaks, slow drainage, inconsistent water temperature, and damp and mould. We have reviewed the landlord’s repairs records and cannot see any recent leaks concerning the bathroom. This issue was reported in 2020 and 2021, and we see the landlord addressed it at the time. However, we note that in its formal response, that the landlord referred to leaks to the “toilet”, rather than bathroom. On reviewing the correspondence, it appears the leaks addressed in 2023 were in relation to the toilet not the bathroom. Therefore, we have gone on to discuss leaks associated with the toilet, rather than bathroom.
The landlord has a statutory obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to carry out repairs pertaining to leaks. Appendix 12 of its repairs policy also states it is responsible for repairs relating to leaks. Therefore, when the resident reported leaks in the toilet and bathroom, it was appropriate for the landlord to investigate and make any necessary repairs.
The landlord’s repair timeframes state that it will attend to emergency repairs in 24 hours. Routine repairs will be attended to within 20 working days from the date of report.
The repair records show on 15 May 2023 a report was raised for a leak in the downstairs toilet. This was noted as containable at the time. We see the landlord had asked its contractor to investigate and make safe, it also requested its contractors make them aware of any follow-on works. The evidence shows it attended that day and the repair was completed.
The repair records also show that a report was raised on 7 April 2023. The resident had informed the landlord there was a leak in the toilet when she flushed and also a leak from the sink.
The evidence shows the landlord’s contractors attended during May 2023 to assess the works. During June 2023 the landlord was awaiting a quote for the works from its contractors. At the time it anticipated the works would likely start in a couple of weeks and take a few days. The evidence shows this was completed on 5 and 6 July 2023.
Whilst we understand there was a 3 month delay in having the works completed, we find it was reasonable because the repair involved multiple jobs. We can see the landlord was proactive during this period in arranging for the works to be completed, despite the time it took.
A further report was raised on 20 July 2023 which stated that the leak was still ongoing. In response to this, we see that the landlord’s contractors reattended on 3 August 2023. Following the works, its operative stated that there were no leaks on the ground floor. We also have not seen evidence to suggest there were further leaks. So, we are satisfied that, based on the evidence, the leak was resolved at the time.
We understand how distressing having a reoccurring leak can be. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for a landlord to proactively seek to resolve the issue in line with its policy. In this instance we understand that the leak was also contributing to damp and mould in the property which we have addressed below. Based on the historic reoccurring leak, we find the landlord’s action to replace the downstairs cloakroom toilet was appropriate. While we recognise it took around 3 months to have these works completed, on reviewing the evidence, we see the landlord was in constant communication with its contractors, arranging inspections, and awaiting a quote before the work could be completed. This timeframe was therefore reasonable in the circumstances and a finding of no maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould.

We have not seen a copy of the landlord’s damp and mould procedure. However, in such circumstances where a resident reports damp and mould, it is reasonable for the landlord to carry out an assessment to determine the cause and make any repairs necessary within the repair timeframes as set out in their policies.
The resident was experiencing damp and mould in the downstairs toilet and upstairs bathroom. She had informed the landlord that both rooms were in a bad state due to the constant leaks experienced within the property. We see that when she raised this report on 16 May 2023, the landlord arranged for an inspection on 19 May 2023. This was a reasonable timeframe, in line with its repairs policy.
Following its inspection, it carried out works to stop the leak. The records show it conducted a further inspection on 24 May 2023 to confirm that the leak had been stopped, which was appropriate; however, it identified that damage had been caused to the wall. To resolve the issue, it arranged for its contractor to attend on 26 June 2023 to carry out a damp and mould wash. Given that the damp and mould was located only in these rooms, it was reasonable for the landlord to address this as a routine repair. As per the landlord’s policy, it should attend to routine repairs within 20 working days. In this instance, we see the landlord sought to complete these works within 20 working days, which was appropriate.
However, the landlord has stated that the works were not carried out due to the resident declining access to carry out the damp and mould treatment. While we recognise the follow-on works were not completed, we recognise the landlord had attempted to complete this within a reasonable timeframe.
The evidence also shows that following the resident’s reports of damp and mould in May 2023, the landlord had asked its contractors to attend to assess the cause of the damp. It was suggested for works to be completed to the gutter and external wall. Internally, it had recommended to inspect leaks further and carry out works to the downstairs toilet. The evidence shows that once its contractors had provided a quote for the works, this was raised and carried out in June and July 2023. The landlord had been in touch with the resident to keep her informed.
We have reviewed the correspondence, and it shows that during a further inspection on 31 July 2023 the landlord stated the bathroom ceiling could do with a mould wash. Further works were carried out the beginning of August 2023. This timeframe was in line with its policy and was reasonable in the circumstances. We see in the landlord’s stage 1 response the landlord confirmed that as of 7 September 2023, all the damp and mould issues had been addressed. It also stated it did not have any active reports of any outstanding issues. We have reviewed the repair records and have not seen that there were any further reports made. It was appropriate that it kept the resident informed of its position.
We understand the resident had also raised concerns about the type of paint which was used on the wall to prevent the damp and mould. The evidence shows the resident raised concerns to the landlord on 20 July 2023 about the paintwork in the bathroom peeling. Subsequently, on 31 July 2023 during a joint inspection, the operative found that the paintwork to one wall was blistering in the downstairs toilet. They stated this was due to hygroscopic salts. To remedy this, it advised it would need to be hacked back and renewed. The repairs records state the works were completed by 3 August 2023.This was a reasonable timeframe, in line with its repairs policy.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 8 November 2023, it addressed the resident’s concerns about incorrect paint being used. We see it states it was checking with its contractors if the incorrect paint was used. If it was incorrect it would revisit. We have reviewed the records and have seen no further notes or work orders regarding this matter. We have since spoken to the resident who has informed us the paint on the wall is peeling and wet. Given its promise to keep the resident updated, this would have been frustrating and would have damaged the landlord/tenant relationship. In this aspect we find there has been a service failure by the landlord.
Given the ongoing issues experienced by the resident, an order has been made for the landlord to inspect the paint and if there is an issue identified it should consider what repairs are needed to remedy the issue.
The resident has informed us the damp and mould issues have returned in the bathroom. While this issue has occurred following the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to arrange an inspection and consider what needs to be done in order to resolve the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace bathroom.

During the resident’s complaint, she had stated that her bathroom was supposed to be replaced. In response, we see the landlord stated it had recommended an inspection of the bathroom in 2019 to establish if a renewal was required. The inspection was then carried out in 2020, but it did not qualify for a renewal.
Whilst we do not dispute the resident’s position that her bathroom should have been replaced. We have reviewed the correspondence and have not seen evidence to satisfy that the landlord was required to replace the bathroom. Or that it told the resident it was going to.
Section 3 of the landlord’s Asset Referral Procedure refers to its bathroom programme. This states a replacement should be assessed to identify if it qualifies for inclusion in the planned programme. If the criteria for a replacement are not met, then the works should be completed by the day-to-day repairs contractors. We also understand that landlords have finite resources, and it is therefore reasonable to seek to repair where possible.
In this instance, we see on 25 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to explain bathroom replacements are completed following a referral. It further explained the photographs provided would not be sufficient for it to refer her. It explained it would ask the housing officer to visit to take further photos. It was appropriate that it measured her expectations and took steps to gather further evidence.
We see an inspection took place on 30 June 2023. The landlord reviewed the condition of the bathroom for possible referral. However, it did not believe this met the requirements. A further inspection happened on 31 July 2023 where the landlord reiterated its position on the bathroom replacement.
We see the landlord made the resident aware of its position on the bathroom and we are satisfied that it appropriately informed her of this. While we agree that it is within the landlord’s discretion to make such decision, we see there was a delay for the landlord to conduct the inspection in June 2023. It is not evident why this delay occurred, or that it kept the resident adequately informed.
We also see the resident had informed the landlord of her need for the bathroom and toilet to be in the same space. This was to accommodate her daughter’s disability. In response, the landlord had informed her she would need to have an assessment with occupational therapy. We reviewed the landlord’s policies, and it states where there is a need for major adaptions to the home, the resident would need to contact the local council or social services and ask for an assessment from an occupational therapist. The resident’s needs would need to be assessed, and a referral made to the landlord’s aids and adaptations team.
We have not seen that a referral from an occupational therapist was made to the landlord, therefore it was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of the process.
In summary, while it was appropriate that it measured the resident’s expectations about a renewal and sought to investigate further, there was an unreasonable delay in doing so. In its formal responses, we see the landlord acknowledged a delay regarding the first inspection in 2020. However, the delay regarding the 2023 inspection was not considered. This was a missed opportunity to identify its errors, to provide an explanation, to identify learning, and to offer redress. Therefore, we have found there was service failure in the circumstances. An order for £100 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the bathroom.

Orders and recommendations

Order.

The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience in addressing the peeling paint. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this letter. The landlord should provide evidence to us to show it has complied with the order.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss and assess the recent report of damp, mould and the paint peeling. It should subsequently provide its position on any repairs and if damp and mould is identified, it should consider appropriate remedies to resolve the matter.
The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the delays inspecting the resident’s bathroom with regards to a replacement. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this letter. The landlord should provide evidence to us to show it has complied with the order.